Nolan's for me, Batman .begins is my favourite Batman film, followed very closely by The Dark Knight. I do prefer Batman '89 to The Dark Knight Rises though but that is miles better than Batman Returns, Batman Forever and (quite possibly the worst film ever made) Batman & Robin. I do like Forever though and I used to love Returns but the dialogue in that film makes it unbearable to watch these days.

Can't disagree with this it's superb especially the main theme. I will say though that I think the Dark Knight Returns animated films score comes very close to Elfman's in my opinion.

Quote:

- The batmobile (and I'll add the batplane, and even the batboat from Returns up there as well)

I do love the Tumbler but again I agree the Burton Batmobile is my favourite. However, watching Burtons films I never actually believed the car could move so fast unlike the Tumbler.

Quote:

- the batsuit (It looks like a creature, like the actual BATMAN, Batman in the Nolan film always looks like a guy dressing up as Batman instead of a creature, hence the armor/mechanical look)

The one in Returns was better than the one in '89 and that one had the best cowl but I prefer the Begins suit, it looked less rubbery and I always prefer the black bat symbol over the yellow oval

Quote:

- the batcave. It was just awesome and all around cool looking. Exactly what I think of when i think of Batman. Nolan's was pretty mundane.

I never bought into the Burton or Schumachers caves, they always looked like giant toys to me, the cave in Nolan's looks like a real cave and I much prefer that.

Quote:

- Keaton was a better Batman. There. I said it. His Batman voice is awesome and he looked cooler, and he kept his cool. He was like the Batman of the comics. He never flew off the handle or became a screaming maniac. There is a reason why people make fun of Bale's (or Nolan's) Batman on youtube/college humor so much, doing the voice/character that way lended a lot of ridiculousness to it.

While I still think Keaton's I'm Batman scene is still the best self declaration scene in any superhero movie I thought Bale was the better Batman, believing he can do the things he does is important to me. Even though I loved Keaton I always felt he wasn't as good when he wasn't using his toys. Bale's Batman voice only got silly in the Dark Knight and I truly believe that was due to the change in cowl. Still you wouldn't believe he was Bruce Wayne would you?

Quote:

- Gotham city. Anton Furst got academy award cred for his Gotham City. That's how Gotham should like, not too far from reality but it should be its own world

I think you like the fantasy element and that makes sense as its more like the comic book. Only problem I have in Burtons films is everything looks like a set whereas in Nolan's it looks like a real city. I actually think Begins did it best, it had that darkness to it that still felt comic book.

Quote:

- permawhite Joker WITH laughing gas. Laughing to death is still 100 times more terrifying to me than a dude slashing my face. It's a contrast, which is what the Joker is. I think Nicholson and Ledger are neck and neck, but I knew Nicholson could do it since he is the Joker in a lot of ways in real life (to perfect for the part), Ledger was kind of a shock for me, so that definitely makes me hold his performance in a higher regard, although I will say they are equally as good at the end of the day.

Ahh gotta disagree again I love Jack Nicholson as the Joker but he played himself in Joker make up. Ledger transformed into the Joker fir me, the perma white stuff is unimportant in my opinion. The whole laughing gas stuff was just funny to me not scary in anyway but when Ledger had that knife to Michael Jai White's mouth I felt the tension.

Quote:

- The 89 film is a Batman movie, not a "Burton" film, not a "Nolan" film, not a "crime drama"

I half agree, I still feel '89 feels much like a Burton film but not as much as Returns. I feel only the second half of Begins feels like a true Batman film to me.

Quote:

....now here's what I liked better about Nolan's films:

- That Bruce Wayne's parents were killed by a common street thug (Joe Chill) without any ties to future Batman villains. They get the origin right in that respect for the most part. I do wish the Waynes had attended a movie instead of a play (a play about BATS of all things...what the ****, but I get it I guess) I do wish they'd have shown him travelling the world and perfecting his detective/disguise/chmical/skills and athletic prowess more, but maybe next time.

I agree completely on Joe Chill, I didn't like the Joker been Wayne's parents killer but I get why they did it.

Agree on the movie, were there problems with rights to Zorro?

Actually that's one thing I don't think any Batman film has done very well, he's never felt like a detective to me.

Quote:

- Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon. Perfect casting, the guy was born to play him

- The Batman/Gordon relationship being prevalent throughout the series. This was done perfectly, IMO, exactly how it should have been done and how I always wanted to see it

Agreed 100%

Quote:

- Bruce Wayne being a socialite and doing some overall Bruce Wayney things - there isn't much of that in either of the Burton films, or as much I should say. Little things like Bruce being asleep at the meeting in TDK I liked.

- The multiple villains Nolan weaved into TDK without making us notice too much; I liked that the Scarecrow was in every film and Two Face was in TDK - although I think both could carry their own films. People complain that the villains are sometimes given too much spot in the Batman films, but for me, half of Batman has always been his villains.

- Catwoman's portrayal in TDKR - just a petty thief. I may have liked Burton's Catwoman costume better, but let's face it, in no way is Nolan (or many other directors) ever going to be able to touch Burton stylistically, which is both a good and bad thing on some days, although I did not think Catwoman's costume was bad on the whole in TDKR. I liked her portrayal as just a thief better than some freaky woman who was pushed out of a window revived by cats - even though that was cool in its own way, it's very Burtony and NOT Batman, and ultimately not what I want to see in a Batman movie (in addition to his Penguin creation, DeVito was perfect casting, but Burton effed it with having him play his high school creation he called "The Penguin" instead of the actual comic book character of The Penguin, I still enjoy some of DeVito's scenes though)

- That Batman himself does not kill (Depending on the circumstances I can see how this rule being violated as an exception sometimes, however on the whole I believe it should be maintained that the character does NOT kill, ever for the most part)

Agreed mostly

Quote:

...having said all that, neither have got it 100% right so far, the best incarnation of Batman is still, to this day Batman: The Animates Series. A movie done with that style and tone is my ideal Batman film, even something along the lines of what they did with the Zorro film by Martin Campbell from the nineties, keep the level of fun/swashbucklerness of it that gets you excited about the character in addition to the dark and the heaviness and the seriousness and mystery and suspense of it, then you got the perfect Batman movie. Along with Elfman's and/or Shirley Walker's Batman score and the 89 or animated series batmobile of course.

I think the main reason he put burton and Schumacher together was because they're both technically supposed to be set in the same world. atleast batman forever was, not so sure about B & R.... I think people are going a bit overboard with this.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batman

Comic fans Ɉ will always defend the hot chick with the rack, unless said chick was divorcing someone like Michael Fassbender or Tom Hardy.

If the kool aid gives everyone the knowledge to know the truth, then I want more of that!

Quote:

Gee....well then that means you have no idea what you're talking about! Which means you have no place "arguing" then, or even feigning an argument.

I'll take...D for Derp...

Talking about not knowing what they're talking about when you're trying to say Burton's films and Schumacher's aren't connected.

Yes, D for Derp indeed!

Quote:

LOL go pay attention to my posts, then come back, jack.

Pay attention to a silly notion of four films that aren't connected when they indeed are. No ****ing thank you dude!

Quote:

Anno: "Alls I care about is my rigged election and damn anyone who wants to point that out! We're having Nolan smackdown over here, and I'm gonna make sure o' that, this here's my town, see? Don't bother wavin' a lantern at this d*ck ride train cuz it don' stop fer nuthin'! 'specially things like facts an' fairness!"

You sound like a politician with trying so hard to make a point. You should run for office wherever you live.

And you mean facts like Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever and Batman & Robin being in the same "world"...facts like that bud?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellblazer103

I think the main reason he put burton and Schumacher together was because they're both technically supposed to be set in the same world. atleast batman forever was, not so sure about B & R.... I think people are going a bit overboard with this.

There is some common sense on this thread, that I am proud of

Yes, Burton's films and Schumacher's films are in the same world. Because one prefers one director over the other, they try not to remember that fact. Sad, really, but I guess if it helps them sleep at night.

I think the main reason he put burton and Schumacher together was because they're both technically supposed to be set in the same world. atleast batman forever was, not so sure about B & R.... I think people are going a bit overboard with this.

In which case you might as well put all the Batman movies together because they are in the same franchise. One director's creative control has no bearing on another's.

Nobody in the fanbase conflates Burton's movies with Schumacher's. This poll is clearly intended to annoy fans of the former while producing some sort of hollow and pre-determined 'victory' for Nolan's.

Nobody in the fanbase conflates Burton's movies with Schumacher's. This poll is clearly intended to annoy fans of the former while producing some sort of hollow and pre-determined 'victory' for Nolan's.

Two things that are incredibly annoying to hear.

'Nobody in the fanbase'....really? I own all four films on Blu-ray and I continue to say they are related and I hear the same all the time.

And the other....really? My attempt to annoy the former? I don't think so. It's my attempt to compare the two series when Burton and Schumacher's films ARE connected.

In which case you might as well put all the Batman movies together because they are in the same franchise. One director's creative control has no bearing on another's.

Nobody in the fanbase conflates Burton's movies with Schumacher's. This poll is clearly intended to annoy fans of the former while producing some sort of hollow and pre-determined 'victory' for Nolan's.

umm.... you clearly missed my point .

it's a known fact that batman forever is meant to be a sequel to the burton films. just because it's a different director doesn't change that , and even so burton still was the producer for batman forever.

obviously the Nolan films don't have anything to do with either of them .

I didn't mean that they're related just because they're in the same franchise, but take it for what you will.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batman

Comic fans Ɉ will always defend the hot chick with the rack, unless said chick was divorcing someone like Michael Fassbender or Tom Hardy.

If the kool aid gives everyone the knowledge to know the truth, then I want more of that!

Well it doesn't. Haha! Obviously, you silly git, you! Obviously it's implied in my post that it does nothing of the sort and only a delusional would make that assumption!

But then again, look at the title of this thread!

Quote:

Talking about not knowing what they're talking about when you're trying to say Burton's films and Schumacher's aren't connected.

Yes, D for Derp indeed!

But...they aren't. Certainly not directly if you can even say they are at all. The only way they're in any way, shape, or form "connected" to Burton's films is that you could argue they're used as something to point to and say "hey look! There have been two Batman movies! Now come look at ours since you guys know what Batman is!".

Quote:

Pay attention to a silly notion of four films that aren't connected when they indeed are. No ****ing thank you dude!

Here you go:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

As soon as Burton left, everything else went with him sans Gough and Hingle, and it became "Schumacher's world". Schumacher didn't want Billy Dee Williams as Two Face, and apparently preferred a CGI crapfest over Anton Furst's beautiful sets and Gotham designs, that ugly spiked thing over the sleek piece of glory that is the 89 (REAL) batmobile, et all, so yeah, very much not a continuation of Burton's flicks. They're about as closely knit as the James Bond films pre Craig are as far as "continuity" is concerned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

They're in the same continuity in the same way that Superman Returns is continuity to ALL (yes, that includes 3 & 4) of the Christopher Reeve films. Which is to say they're selective continuity, which is not REAL continuity at all. If anything it's an excuse for laziness because you're not creative enough to come up with something good or are afraid you won't be able come up with something better or at the very least just as creative or good as what the previous films did.

In fact, I'd say there's more continuity with Superman Returns and Superman 1 & 2 than there is Schumacher's and Burton's Batman. Hell, even Batman Returns is barely a sequel to the '89 Batman, and that IS continuity.

Bad form, sir.

There ya go. I saved you the effort and linked you the parts you need to read, now if only I could read them for you.

Quote:

You sound like a politician with trying so hard to make a point. You should run for office wherever you live.

Naw, dude, I was imitating you. Apparently you don't understand sarcasm, either. You would be the more ideal candidate anyway as you prefer a two party puppet system.

Quote:

And you mean facts like Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever and Batman & Robin being in the same "world"...facts like that bud?

Just for you:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

As soon as Burton left, everything else went with him sans Gough and Hingle, and it became "Schumacher's world". Schumacher didn't want Billy Dee Williams as Two Face, and apparently preferred a CGI crapfest over Anton Furst's beautiful sets and Gotham designs, that ugly spiked thing over the sleek piece of glory that is the 89 (REAL) batmobile, et all, so yeah, very much not a continuation of Burton's flicks. They're about as closely knit as the James Bond films pre Craig are as far as "continuity" is concerned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

They're in the same continuity in the same way that Superman Returns is continuity to ALL (yes, that includes 3 & 4) of the Christopher Reeve films. Which is to say they're selective continuity, which is not REAL continuity at all. If anything it's an excuse for laziness because you're not creative enough to come up with something good or are afraid you won't be able come up with something better or at the very least just as creative or good as what the previous films did.

In fact, I'd say there's more continuity with Superman Returns and Superman 1 & 2 than there is Schumacher's and Burton's Batman. Hell, even Batman Returns is barely a sequel to the '89 Batman, and that IS continuity.

Bad form, sir.

Quote:

Yes, Burton's films and Schumacher's films are in the same world. Because one prefers one director over the other, they try not to remember that fact. Sad, really, but I guess if it helps them sleep at night.

I'm going to let this gentleman handle it since I couldn't have said it better myself:

Quote:

Originally Posted by regwec

Only the profoundly ignorant or the profoundly dishonest would draw such a tenuous link.

There's your common sense, my friend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by regwec

I wouldn't even describe it as 'unfair'; it is just a false and transparently dishonest exercise.

You might as well ask, "who do you prefer, (a) Christipher Nolan or (b) Tim Burton and Uwe Boll?" Only the profoundly ignorant or the profoundly dishonest would draw such a tenuous link.

But wait! There's more....

Quote:

Originally Posted by regwec

Nobody in the fanbase conflates Burton's movies with Schumacher's. This poll is clearly intended to annoy fans of the former while producing some sort of hollow and pre-determined 'victory' for Nolan's.

Nobody....except Anno I guess.

^^ That pretty much hits the nail on the head. Are you reading this, Anno?

I own all four on vhs,bare bone dvds, bare bones box set, 2-disc special edition w/slip case for each, single edition blurays. They are connected. They also have a four-part doco spread over each film. Schumacher's version of bruce's parent's killer even looks alot like the young jack napier. Alfred & gordon are the same actor. Chase references catwoman, who was in the movie before. Produced by burton. Kilmer bruce talks about taking a life and getting revenge(on the joker) then going out to find another face then another. He doesnt want that for dick grayson with two-face. Gossip gerty (a reporter) is in batman returns aswell as batman forever. The trading card set for each sequel talks about batman previous movies villian then says can he defeat this one ie: mr freeze. They were promoted as sequels to burtons films in books, tradings cards, reviews etc. Yeah schumacher put his own spin on it but batman forever also went into pre-production with micheal keaton in mind to still play batman.

I can watch any batfilm and enjoy the hell out of it. **** I watched batman & robin last night and did'nt have a problem. Yeah people say it has problems but I don't look at movies that way. I either like it or I don't. It as simple as that. Who directs it does'nt mean a thing really to me. I love Nolan's films too. I'm an adult now and I like my batfilms to have abit of an edge to them but that doesnt mean I will **** on schumacher films because I'm older, no because I was the target age when those ficks came out and the kid me loved those films. Movies dont change, people do. But I also understand that the way things are done do change. I don't know how many times I've watched the nolan trilogy but just because they have improved things(thats subjective,i know) here and there in the films doesnt mean I will **** on an older movie version.

Well it doesn't. Haha! Obviously, you silly git, you! Obviously it's implied in my post that it does nothing of the sort and only a delusional would make that assumption!

But then again, look at the title of this thread!

Kool aid that doesn't give you the enhancement of knowing the truth...well, that sucks. Don't want it now.

I see you made a thread dividing all three directors, lol. I am glad you can sleep at night now knowing that you gave three choices...two of those are directors that worked on the same series, but, whatever floats your boat I guess? LOL.

Quote:

But...they aren't. Certainly not directly if you can even say they are at all. The only way they're in any way, shape, or form "connected" to Burton's films is that you could argue they're used as something to point to and say "hey look! There have been two Batman movies! Now come look at ours since you guys know what Batman is!".

But...they are.

Well, look at that! Even the back describes it as the third film...well, I guess Warner Brothers is just wrong though because the great and almighty Kevin Smith is always right!

Quote:

Here you go:

There ya go. I saved you the effort and linked you the parts you need to read, now if only I could read them for you.

Skipped all over it again, haha.

Quote:

Naw, dude, I was imitating you. Apparently you don't understand sarcasm, either. You would be the more ideal candidate anyway as you prefer a two party puppet system.

Nah, I prefer the truth actually...and the truth is...Batman Forever is a sequel to Batman Returns. Batman & Robin is a sequel to Batman Forever that was a sequel to Batman Returns, yay!

Quote:

Just for you:

Whoops, guess I overlooked it again.

Quote:

I'm going to let this gentleman handle it since I couldn't have said it better myself:

There's your common sense, my friend.

But wait! There's more....

Nobody....except Anno I guess.

^^ That pretty much hits the nail on the head. Are you reading this, Anno?

Quote:

...the third spectacular film in Warner Bros.' Batman series

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Smith

The OP even include's Nolan's full name in the title over the others, LOL.

Hahaha, now you bring in this part for your argument.

The laughs keep on coming!

Quote:

Originally Posted by batfreakforever

I own all four on vhs,bare bone dvds, bare bones box set, 2-disc special edition w/slip case for each, single edition blurays. They are connected. They also have a four-part doco spread over each film. Schumacher's version of bruce's parent's killer even looks alot like the young jack napier. Alfred & gordon are the same actor. Chase references catwoman, who was in the movie before. Produced by burton. Kilmer bruce talks about taking a life and getting revenge(on the joker) then going out to find another face then another. He doesnt want that for dick grayson with two-face. Gossip gerty (a reporter) is in batman returns aswell as batman forever. The trading card set for each sequel talks about batman previous movies villian then says can he defeat this one ie: mr freeze. They were promoted as sequels to burtons films in books, tradings cards, reviews etc. Yeah schumacher put his own spin on it but batman forever also went into pre-production with micheal keaton in mind to still play batman.